Steel Beasts Pro 2.6x upgrade

[Skybird]

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=15605&page=8

Wowh, some goodies in there, and they have not even revealed all that the upgrade will include:

Highlights so far:

- crewable T-72M1 (not me personally, but I know that many have waited for this to happen since 5 years)

- Centurion tank

- Shilka Flak tank

- 3D infantry (visual improvement, functional improvement to follow next year)

- additional bridging options, additional bridge segments for bridge layers

- new maps, one an improvement over the map known from the Brave Rifles video series

I think some more goodies wil follow.

Planned release sometime near the end of this year - hopefully. :)

[Skybird]

- GTK Boxers spotted! Probably crewable, since the RWS is operationable by the player, too.

- infantry confirmed to be available in British, German and American uniforms so far. However, they are moddable. I assume it will not be long before we have Russians as well. And Fins, inevitably. :DL

P.S. I just learned something new: GTK="Gepanzertes Transport Kraftfahrzeug" :)

[Skybird]

- Fuchs/Fox, and confirmed crewable (at least two versions, A6 and A7)

[Skybird]

- apparently a crewable CV-9030FI with 3D interior

The did sound-recordings on the firing range:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaLr77RvN40&feature=feedu

[Sledgehammer427]

wow, looks like its time for ole sledgehammer to take the dive into modern tanking.:yeah:

[Skybird]

- Planning files now can be saved again. This feature, much in demand, was temporarily - nevertheless: for long time - deactivated due to a complex bug.

Also saves as many different plans as desired per mission. And that is new, if I recall it correctly.

[smithcorp]

This is all great news!

[Skybird]

- Kiwi LAV-III confirmed
- 24 tutorials for CV90/35-DK confirmed

[Skybird]

- Truck-mounted infantry

Teaser with all the new stuff in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=7M6Ni3g849Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=7M6Ni3g849Q)

[Skybird]

- improved sound-suite, many new weapons sounds, missiles

- Challenger II made playable (gunners and commander's sights and control, but no 3D interior - situation like in the Leo2A4 right now)

[Skybird]

- several player-controllable ATs.

- several new bridge models, some of them destructable: should allow for some nice mission scenarios and dramatic races for the only escape route...

The new bridge layer functions allow to span rivers of greater width, several bridges can be combined for one long one, like in reality. The function before was buggy and for the most allowed bridge layers to be used only in river areas that had passable fords anyway.

[Skybird]

- motorbikes (no joke)
- new civilian traffic vehicles: trucks, ambulances

I cannot believe it: did I write that? "Motorbikes"...? But it's real:

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/9724/059ry.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/20/059ry.jpg/)

Das glaubt mir ja sonst kein Mensch...

[Skybird]

Beware the ghostriders in the sky:

- the Tiger helicopter now shoots Hellfires from up to 8 km distance (before it was limited to the usual viewing ranges in SBP of I think 4.5 km maximum).

[stringy]

Not too sure about this upgrade make no mistake good news for a lot of people, but I am just wondering what the performance penalty is going to be. The 2.5 version runs smooth as silk on my olde 3.2 dual processor with agp graphics. Still happy with the purchase at the offer price.

[Skybird]

Not too sure about this upgrade make no mistake good news for a lot of people, but I am just wondering what the performance penalty is going to be. The 2.5 version runs smooth as silk on my olde 3.2 dual processor with agp graphics. Still happy with the purchase at the offer price.
Until 9 months ago I was playing SBP, current version, on a single CPU P-IV, 3GHz. Smoothly.

If anything, the infantry maybe will make a change. But I do not expect anything frame-killing.

[Skybird]

- 2S1 Gvozdika, a Russian self-propelled howitzer (although currently a bit limited with HE to be used in direct-fire mode only - functionality will be more improved in a year, but you now can put arty pieces into your missions which have some teeth to defend themselves)

- universal transport confirmed: trucks AND helicopters can pick up troops.

- infantry onboard PCs can be dismounted in the editor, equipped with the weaponry you want them to have, and then be mounted again. Transports can now pick up any infantry, not just units attached to them in the editor.

[Skybird]

How could I have missed this one...? :hmmm: :yeah:Finally:

- 3D-interior for the Leo-2A4. Took them over ten years! :lol:

See in this video ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjnS560BKqQ

By the looks and sounds of it there is new (bombastic) gun sounds, and new environmental sounds - the wind blowing chillingly cold over the icy tundra, also new (German) dubs. Plus some sort of earth-mover vehicle that I do not know.

[Skybird]

- M1A1 with new 3D interior

Nice vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpgcp3aJeUM

[Skybird]

- M-109 self-propelled howitzer

[Skybird]

- AT-3d, AT-4, TOW-2, TOW-2A, TOW-2B, Javelin, Milan, RBS56 BILL all now crewable and can be fired and guided by the player. Both vehicles and infantry (the TOW was fireable from vehicles since longer)

- mouse wheel functionality added for zooming on the map; click, hold and drag map, chnage values etc.

[Skybird]

- Cougar 6x6 MRAP, with TC/gunner and driver station, and crewable MG3.

They say this is the last picture release of their viral advertisement campaign, so I think the list of content is pretty much complete, or close to completenes.

[Skybird]

Oooopsala!

- 3D interiors for Leopard-1A5DK

And a nice new video with column action, towing a hit vehicle, Leopard-1 in action, demonstration of obstacle avoidance along the roads:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU8dveL9Yew

[Skybird]

- M2 Bradley got a new 3D interior.

Targetted release date is in Decembre, before christmas - if no major bugs get found in the last second. Cost will be $US 25,-

[Skybird]

- BRDM-2 and BTR-80 gunners' positions playable.

eSim says beta test phase has been extended by "a couple of days".

[Skybird]

- updated models for FISTV, BMP-1, BMP-2

[Skybird]

Release Notes 2.640 released. 25 pages :o.

Download: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=9318&d=1323304621 (http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=9318&d=1323304621)

[Skybird]

The final version of the code for 2.640 has entered the compiling process in the wee hours of this morning.

I assume the beast will be available for download from later this weekend on, or Monday at the latest.


- As the last surprise, they squeezed in a new exterior model for the Leopard-1A5DK.

[stringy]

@Skybird

Thanks for the info about the cpu hit if any. I have decided that I am going to give it a go and will be downloading the upgrade on Monday if all goes to plan. One of the things that impresses me with this sim is the sheer amount of detail they have managed to include without overloading my somewhat dated pc.

A word of caution, this is definetely a study sim as the manuals will testify. You will have to put the hours in to get the best results. I have a feeling I will be playing this game for several years, so in my opinion it is worth the outlay.

[Skybird]

@Skybird

Thanks for the info about the cpu hit if any. I have decided that I am going to give it a go and will be downloading the upgrade on Monday if all goes to plan. One of the things that impresses me with this sim is the sheer amount of detail they have managed to include without overloading my somewhat dated pc.

A word of caution, this is definetely a study sim as the manuals will testify. You will have to put the hours in to get the best results. I have a feeling I will be playing this game for several years, so in my opinion it is worth the outlay.

"Study sim" usually refers to the in-depth simulating of complex avionics and on-board systems, like in Falcon, Black Shark, and A-10, some cockpit modules for FS9 and FSX by PMDG and the like, with manuals several huindred pages thick to explain the radar modes and the programming of an FMC. All this is not the case with SBP. Granted, some tanks are modelled for greater complexity in button-pressing than others, but all in all the challenge lies not in how to handle the tank and taking aim with secondary sights (basic handling and aiming in principle is no big deal), but in managing the cooperation of a force, making best use of terrain, and tactical challenges. If anything is needed, than it is expoerience and training, especially when needing to use secondary sights that have no helpful stuff like laser and dynamic lead. But again, these sights are not so much to be studied, but one needs to train to gain experience in quick range and speed estimations.

Just to prevent a possible misleading impression.

Good decision of yours. If tanks are your thing, you can rest assured - you will play this for years to come indeed. All SB-tankers do. :DL

[Skybird]

- Holy cow, some sensors and weapon platforms now calculate with LOS ranges of over 16 km... :o

Before, the locked maximum was 4.5 km or so.

[Skybird]

IMPACT!

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?p=203570#post203570

Price for upgrading from earlier versions 25 $US/18.68 Euros.

[Skybird]

The codemeter runtime environment that gets installed by 2.640, is the older version 4.30c. It will not hurt to go to their website and download the latest version 4.30d. 32- and 64-Bit versions available.

[Skybird]

I have just tested the new T-72M1, which now is playable and has a virtual 3D interior.

A nightmare! Compared to a Leopard-1A5DK (now coming with 3D interior and a new 3D HiRes vehicle model), almost primitive. The aiming procedure is time-consuming and primitive, the firing range is bad, the precision lacks, and poor handling. No secondary sights. Shooting at moving targets is - an aventure. A rolling coffin, I understand, and at eSim somebody said it was build with a life expectancy of firing ten shots before getting killed on mind, so what use to invest more into it... The IR (not to mix with thermal sights which the T-72 does not have...), only usable at night, has a usable range of maybe 300 meters or so. And it is so slow in reverse. It crawls.

I have argued in another thread that the Leopard-1 were totally superior. I now got an impression from handling, to what degree that superiority really made itself felt. Compared to the T-72, it apparently was rolling luxury, with fire control being superior in handling, and more precise fire over much greater range. Not to mention night battle.

Also had a first look at the other stuff that is in there. Very impressive upgrade this is, and some nice stuff for sure.

And then there is the firing procedure and sight separation in the Chally-2. At eSim they introduced the joke that the Challenger has a "distinctively British" fire control system. I now see the humour in that!

Good upgrade, very good package!

[Deamon]

It's getting harder and harder for me to resist. Sky were there any improvements to the scripting system ?

What the old SB missed in particular was the ability to use events/triggers of the opfor side to trigger stuff on your own side.

[Skybird]

Its the same logic in the background. However, some said at eSim that they think the AI acts even better now, but I cannot comment this pro or contra.

What kind of scripts do you need, as an example? I would say you can do an awful lot with the editor of SBP. It has time variables, area- and unit-condition variables.

I know the editors from Flashpoint and Sub Commd as well. Compared to these, SBP is as potent (at least), but more comfortable to handle I would say.

You can already trigger actions of own force depending on actions by red force. If red units (specified or unspecified) enter defined area Y, then blue unit Z starts moving towards position Omega, for example.

[Skybird]

The stickied SBP resources thread has been updated with the new vehicle list, and updates to general instructions.

[Deamon]

Its the same logic in the background. However, some said at eSim that they think the AI acts even better now, but I cannot comment this pro or contra.

What kind of scripts do you need, as an example? I would say you can do an awful lot with the editor of SBP. It has time variables, area- and unit-condition variables.

I know the editors from Flashpoint and Sub Commd as well. Compared to these, SBP is as potent (at least), but more comfortable to handle I would say.

You can already trigger actions of own force depending on actions by red force. If red units (specified or unspecified) enter defined area Y, then blue unit Z starts moving towards position Omega, for example.
The SB editor is certainly the best out there but it lacks scripting options. I tried to do a mission myself once but had to realize that it cannot be implemented the way i wanted it due to limitations in scripting options. I can trigger enemy reactions based on how many units are in a designated area but i cannot trigger the same action based on how many units have actually been detected in the designated area. This basically rules out the surprize and stealth factors that i badly need for my mission ideas.

What the scripting also misses is the ability to interlock bluefor and redfor triggers and events with each other. F.e. i cannot say "if redfor trigger SEND_BACK_UP = true and blue for unit xy is alife, print message "ELINT REPORT: Be adviced enemy radio traffic increased! Signal strength mostly weak.""

I also cannot make something like: "If redfor detects n bluefor units in area Obj1 and bluefor trigger JAM_REDFOR_RADIO = false set trigger SEND_BACK_UP = true" and i can't do something like: "If redfor trigger WE_ARE_COMMING = true, print message "ELINT REPORT: Enemey radio signal strengh increasing, be adviced enemy units are closing in on our position""

I also cannot make something like: "If bluefor trigger JAM_ENEMY_RADIO = true, expose bluefor unit xy position to redfor" and then do something like "If bluefor trigger JAM_ENEMY_RADIO = true, and unit xy is known to redfor, charge with redfor gunships to the last known position of bluefor unit xy and blow it up(for that matter i would like to have an option of prioritizing targets)" or alternatively create an artillary mission over the last know position of the blue for xy unit.

I think adding thouse options wouldn't be a big deal. Man i just wish SB would have a proper scripting language that you can write into text files so that you could make truly dynamic and complex AI behavior and hillarious missions(on a little side note, for my own sim i developed a scripting language that SB, flshpoint and sub command can only dream about).

Besides that SB should have an option to have neutral parties that eventually could become hostile if the player for example enters a penalty zone. This way you could define a territory of a neutral party that would become passively or actively hostile when you would cross its territory, perhaps SBP has this option already ?

BTW does SBP features civilian traffic ?

EDITOR
Eventhough the SB editor is the best out there i still feel it takes way to many clicks to get what i want. I feel setting all the waypoints is way to combersome and time consuming. Can't we get an option where we can define a template of settings and assign a key to it and then instead of setting the way points with the mouse button just press that key and the settings of the waypoint are set according to that template ? I am tired to click maself through all the same menus and options time and again for each and every waypoint.

Also, while at it, after the waypoint have been created, the waypoint should face the mouse cursor(that is if a tactic for it is assigned) so that you can quickely set its direction by simple moving the cursor a bit into the direction you want the position to face to without the need to click on the damn thing again and turn it around, this way you would also avoid to click on the wrong waypoint accidentally when you have several waypoints overlaping in a small area(which annois the crap out of me). With this improvements the time required to set complex paths would shrink to a fraction of what it is now.

Also does the editor have the capeability already to zoom in on the mouse cursor ? Is there a thread somewhere where improvement propositions can be submit to ?

[Skybird]

The SB editor is certainly the best out there but it lacks scripting options. I tried to do a mission myself once but had to realize that it cannot be implemented the way i wanted it due to limitations in scripting options. I can trigger enemy reactions based on how many units are in a designated area but i cannot trigger the same action based on how many units have actually been detected in the designated area. This basically rules out the surprize and stealth factors that i badly need for my mission ideas.
Define zone.
Make event: if any unit/this unit/unit XYZ sees x vehicles/tanks/APC/any enemy unit in zone, then set event to "valid"
Have conditioned route or conditioned respawns witrh a condition of "if event true then execute".


What the scripting also misses is the ability to interlock bluefor and redfor triggers and events with each other. F.e. i cannot say "if redfor trigger SEND_BACK_UP = true and blue for unit xy is alife, print message "ELINT REPORT: Be adviced enemy radio traffic increased! Signal strength mostly weak.""
Define RedFor Trigger.
Define BlueFor Trigger by "if Redfor Trigger true, than this trigger true".
Define action for Blue basing on BlueFor trigger true or not.

I also cannot make something like: "If redfor detects n bluefor units in area Obj1 and bluefor trigger JAM_REDFOR_RADIO = false set trigger SEND_BACK_UP = true" and i can't do something like: "If redfor trigger WE_ARE_COMMING = true, print message "ELINT REPORT: Enemey radio signal strengh increasing, be adviced enemy units are closing in on our position""
Why not?
Define Bluefor condition JAM_REDFOR_RADIO.
Define trigger Send_BackUP.
If redfor detects x blue forces in zone x, make them move into a defined zone.
Have a condition on the just above being true. Link it to the radio message you want to send.


I also cannot make something like: "If bluefor trigger JAM_ENEMY_RADIO = true, expose bluefor unit xy position to redfor" and then do something like "If bluefor trigger JAM_ENEMY_RADIO = true, and unit xy is known to redfor, charge with redfor gunships to the last known position of bluefor unit xy and blow it up(for that matter i would like to have an option of prioritizing targets)" or alternatively create an artillary mission over the last know position of the blue for xy unit.
Now it becomes quite detailed and specialsied, but by interlinkling blue and red conditions, I see not a principle problem there. It just turns things into a veryx complex scripting - and the question is if that is really what makes a mission that special. I have played too many missions that acchieved elements of surprise and randomisation by simpler constructs,. giving me a different expreience every time, than than I would think it is such specialisation likie you noutline here that makes SBP that different.

Keep it simplier. Maybe you just think it too complex. Too much effort for too little gain.


I think adding thouse options wouldn't be a big deal. Man i just wish SB would have a proper scripting language that you can write into text files so that you could make truly dynamic and complex AI behavior and hillarious missions(on a little side note, for my own sim i developed a scripting language that SB, flshpoint and sub command can only dream about).
They depend on having an ergonomic, easy-accessible and still capable, potent editor interface that does not draw too many resources in the background. For their military customers, doing all this in networks, but on not really gaming PCs, that might be a factor. I also think that maybe you just do not know how to workaround the limitations you believe to see.


Besides that SB should have an option to have neutral parties that eventually could become hostile if the player for example enters a penalty zone. This way you could define a territory of a neutral party that would become passively or actively hostile when you would cross its territory, perhaps SBP has this option already ?
There is demand for insurgency operations, and so some of the things you may thijunk about are on their list for the next or any of the next releases. The turn towards 3D infantry now is the first step in that evolution, also the ability to play infantry ATGMs now. There are also workaround via conditions to make civilian traffic a bit unpredictable in its inention, I seem to remember. There was a thread on that some weeks ago, but I forgot the details, since I was not overly interested in these things.


BTW does SBP features civilian traffic ?

Traffic? Well, there are vehicles, civilian ones, even a civilian bus and civilian ambulance now. Ten types all in all, I think. Haven'T played around with them. There are also armed civilian pickups.


EDITOR
Eventhough the SB editor is the best out there i still feel it takes way to many clicks to get what i want. I feel setting all the waypoints is way to combersome and time consuming. Can't we get an option where we can define a template of settings and assign a key to it and then instead of setting the way points with the mouse button just press that key and the settings of the waypoint are set according to that template ? I am tired to click maself through all the same menus and options time and again for each and every waypoint.
Each of the tatcical settings for a route define the default layout for speeds and behaviour on that route when adding WPs. But you can - but miust not - manually chnage these settings, both for routes and WPs. Factors to be in fluenced are speeds, behaviour when contact is made, formation.

Also, while at it, after the waypoint have been created, the waypoint should face the mouse cursor(that is if a tactic for it is assigned) so that you can quickely set its direction by simple moving the cursor a bit into the direction you want the position to face to without the need to click on the damn thing again and turn it around, this way you would also avoid to click on the wrong waypoint accidentally when you have several waypoints overlaping in a small area(which annois the crap out of me). With this improvements the time required to set complex paths would shrink to a fraction of what it is now.
The heading of WPs as a m atter of fact can be chnaged, and very easily. You start to become a bit too taste-dependent, eh? I think so,methign was chnaged there now anyhow, I have not tried it yet, but I think you now need to use a key to place a WP. Well, much to be tried out.


Also does the editor have the capeability already to zoom in on the mouse cursor ? Is there a thread somewhere where improvement propositions can be submit to ?
Mouse wheel support now is implemented, but I found it to be extremnely sensitive and do not use it. Maybe hardware-dependent.

eSim board, general forum, seems to be the place you want to look at to post.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/forumdisplay.php?f=3 (http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)

Just curious since you first said you have reisted to the sim so far, but then said what you cannot do with it's editor. Do you own it and have you played it?

I mean there are already over 400 missions both SP and MP available, and regular MP events and several virtual units. After all, SBP is not an editor in the first, but a sim that begs to be played. ;) The editor - is just a tool.

P.S.
I realise that you probably meant SB1 when referring to your expereinces with the editor? If yo, do yourself a faqvour, and clean your expectaiton logbook and start new, and get SBP, then see what you get in mission play. It does not compare anymore, it just does not compare.

Note that the price only then is 125 $ when you order the full pack with CD and booklet. You can skip the latter two, just get the software via download and dongle, take the manual as included pdf, and skip the CD option also. That way, it is just 100 dollars (74.88 euros at the time I type this). No shipping costs. While you can download and install immediately, and read the manuals, you need to wait for the delivery of the dongle before you can play, though.

[Lieste]

Just to add to that - if you are interested in playing an existing scenario (rather than delving extensively into the editor) then you can head to the SB team-speak channel and ask if anyone can share a license...

It is possible to then use the downloaded software using (temporarily) another users' main or secondary license. Never tried it myself, but I gather it is reasonably common and there are a number of people who do it regularly for others wanting to try before buying...

[Deamon]

Maybe you just think it too complex. Too much effort for too little gain.
No i simple want to simulate the more subtle aspects of the battlefield no one else seem to think about, in order to make a more complete and versatile experience. I prefer more asymetrical and non-linear scenarios than the usual move from a to b and take that hill or defend that pass or something like that, something like commanding an air borne battalion dropped behind enemy lines and mess up the resupply routes and try to divert as many enemy forces as possible from the front line to releave your own forces and stuff like that, missions where you do not have a frontline and have to depend a lot on stealth, maneuvering, deception, surprizes and ambushes and also electronic warfare. I would like to try something different than the usual linear hammering of the enemy.

There is demand for insurgency operations, and so some of the things you may thijunk about are on their list for the next or any of the next releases. The turn towards 3D infantry now is the first step in that evolution, also the ability to play infantry ATGMs now. There are also workaround via conditions to make civilian traffic a bit unpredictable in its inention, I seem to remember. There was a thread on that some weeks ago, but I forgot the details, since I was not overly interested in these things.
I read somewhere that infantry squads can now be split into smaller groups ? Is it possible in the latest release to move only one individual in the squad ?

Oh and btw did the possible theatre size increased in SBP ?

Traffic? Well, there are vehicles, civilian ones, even a civilian bus and civilian ambulance now. Ten types all in all, I think. Haven'T played around with them. There are also armed civilian pickups. So i take from that that i can have neutral traffic in the game then.

Each of the tatcical settings for a route define the default layout for speeds and behaviour on that route when adding WPs. But you can - but miust not - manually chnage these settings, both for routes and WPs. Factors to be in fluenced are speeds, behaviour when contact is made, formation. I know all that.

The heading of WPs as a m atter of fact can be chnaged, and very easily.I know all that but my point was to make it even easier and faster. As fast and easy as possible, what is wrong with that ?

You start to become a bit too taste-dependent, eh?No i just hate bureaucracy, Why should i spend 30 minutes with setting all the waypoints and options if it can be done in 5 minutes instead through simple editor improvements ? Editor ergonomy should fit like a glove, period!


I think so,methign was chnaged there now anyhow, I have not tried it yet, but I think you now need to use a key to place a WP. Well, much to be tried out.Btw is the manual downloadable somewhere before i order that thing ? I would like to see first what's in there.


Just curious since you first said you have reisted to the sim so far, but then said what you cannot do with it's editor. Do you own it and have you played it?No i haven't, that is why i am asking you.

I mean there are already over 400 missions both SP and MP available, and regular MP events and several virtual units. After all, SBP is not an editor in the first, but a sim that begs to be played. ;) The editor - is just a tool.
What 400 ? I have to try each of them. :D Man i can't wait to cross rivers with bridge layers and clear minefields and stuff. I have been waiting for this. Oh btw is it actually possible for the crew of a vehicle to actually disembark and move on foot ? I am tired of loosing my BRDM's just because i took a peek over the hill.

P.S.
I realise that you probably meant SB1 when referring to your expereinces with the editor? If yo, do yourself a faqvour, and clean your expectaiton logbook and start new, and get SBP, then see what you get in mission play. It does not compare anymore, it just does not compare. So you can guarantee me that red and blufor triggers/events are interlockable in SBP ? Have you actually tried the stuff out that you proposed above in response to my complaints ?

Note that the price only then is 125 $ when you order the full pack with CD and booklet. You can skip the latter two, just get the software via download and dongle, take the manual as included pdf, and skip the CD option also. That way, it is just 100 dollars (74.88 euros at the time I type this). No shipping costs. While you can download and install immediately, and read the manuals, you need to wait for the delivery of the dongle before you can play, though.I see that i actually confused dollars with euros that eases the shock a littlebit. Thank's for the clarification.

[Skybird]

No i simple want to simulate the more subtle aspects of the battlefield no one else seem to think about, in order to make a more complete and versatile experience. I prefer more asymetrical and non-linear scenarios than the usual move from a to b and take that hill or defend that pass or something like that
Such scenarios exist - in huge numbers.
something like commanding an air borne battalion
Do you have an idea of the work overload you would suffer as a commander of such a force? SBP can handle batallion, even brigade sized forces, I tried and tested that for sure in 2006, but there is a reason why scenariodesigners do not design scenarios that set a blue batallion against a red brigade. SBP focusses on training the experience on platoon and company level. And competently handling a company already will have you busy. Several companies under your command - not too good an idea.

dropped behind enemy lines and mess up the resupply routes and try to divert as many enemy forces as possible from the front line to releave your own forces and stuff like that, missions where you do not have a frontline and have to depend a lot on stealth, maneuvering, deception, surprizes and ambushes and also electronic warfare. I would like to try something different than the usual linear hammering of the enemy.
SBP focusses on the tactical scale for sure, you talk about the strategic level. Which means you are completely in the wrong department and maybe should focus on something like Conquest of the Aegean, or Battles for the Bulge. SBP is a tactical simulator, no operational or strategic.


I read somewhere that infantry squads can now be split into smaller groups ? Is it possible in the latest release to move only one individual in the squad ?
If he is the only survivor, yes. :)
Squads can now be loaded by just any transport unit, they are no longer attached to their own PC. Their weapon loadout can be altered, and since longer time they are split into heavy and light sections. There can also be HMG, ATGM and MMG sections of three fighters independet from any squad. I think helicopter transport also is possible now, I am not sure. But I warn you, it is no infantry simulator, the behaviour of infantry still leaves a lot to be desired. They improve it, they have turned to 3D, they want toi improve for the next release in one year - but infantry is not where SBP shines. For infantry, go to ArmA. For mechanised warfare, go to SBP.

Oh and btw did the possible theatre size increased in SBP ?

I think 22x22 km is still the maximum. Which is more than you need for a tactical simulation of tanks.

I know all that but my point was to make it even easier and faster. As fast and easy as possible, what is wrong with that ?
Nothing. Just messes up the ergonmomy of the interface if for every rare detail a separate option gets implemented. It is like a TV remote control with 50 buttons, and one with 20 buttons working via menues - I (and SBP) prefer the latter, for 95% of the time it is more comfortable. It seems nobody misses the options you lined out - I read no comments about these things anywhere in the past 5 years. I think you get lost in too specialised microdetails. ;) Have a taste of what you already have with the sim right now. Play it. You will be surprised how fast you probably forget the things you described. Like I have completely forgotten that there still are no shadows in the world, and that suspension still is not implemented, and maybe never will be. It simply does not matter.


No i just hate bureaucracy, Why should i spend 30 minutes with setting all the waypoints and options if it can be done in 5 minutes instead through simple editor improvements ? Editor ergonomy should fit like a glove, period!
See above. I think you get lost in too many exceptions and sub-specialisations. Try the editor that is there, do a company assaulting a batallion in defence, or defend against a brigade attacking from randomised directions, needing you to shift around your numerically inferior forces to the shifting hotspots of action. You will be busy with many of the scenarios that already are there. You will already be busy with just 1-platoon scenarios. And the specialised effects you demand - can already be acchieved for the most. Just needs a little routine and practice.

Btw is the manual downloadable somewhere before i order that thing ? I would like to see first what's in there.

Try here:
http://www.steelbeasts.com/Downloads/p13_sectionid/257

And the SBP wikipedia:
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Main_Page#Playtesting

Oh btw is it actually possible for the crew of a vehicle to actually disembark and move on foot ?
Squads yes, crews no. There is also the UGV of the squad, a remote-controlled ground robot that can steer away up to 200 or 300 m.


So you can guarantee me that red and blufor triggers/events are interlockable in SBP ? Have you actually tried the stuff out that you proposed above in response to my complaints ?
I guarantee you nothing, I am only human. Longer time ago I have done missions for my own enjoyment where I defined blue condition, maybe a force entering a zone, I then linked them to a blue I think "event" it is called, and these events can be the variable for events of the other side: red-event true when blueevent true. And then on the red side of things: red action go if red-event true. Timing variables, randomisations per mission and randomisations per call also are possible.

There is a SBP resources thread amongst the stickies at the top of the forum list. There also is a video thread, recommended is escpecially the Brave Rifles Series, and in general the MP-videos by Zipuli. And then there is eSims own youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/eSimGamesDtl#

[Deamon]

Such scenarios exist - in huge numbers.
Good! I guess i gotta try it then.

Do you have an idea of the work overload you would suffer as a commander of such a force? SBP can handle batallion, even brigade sized forces, I tried and tested that for sure in 2006, but there is a reason why scenariodesigners do not design scenarios that set a blue batallion against a red brigade. SBP focusses on training the experience on platoon and company level. And competently handling a company already will have you busy. Several companies under your command - not too good an idea.That totally depends on how you set up a scenario. I made a scenario once where you command a regiment very comfortable. Besides that if i am saying battalion i don't automatically mean micromanaging a battalion simultaniously but rather micromanaging a company while the rest is kept in reserve.

SBP focusses on the tactical scale for sure, you talk about the strategic level. Which means you are completely in the wrong department and maybe should focus on something like Conquest of the Aegean, or Battles for the Bulge. SBP is a tactical simulator, no operational or strategic.
No i am talking about tactical level perhaps with one or two minor strategical elements.

For infantry, go to ArmA. For mechanised warfare, go to SBP.
I want both. This was perhaps one of the reasons why i have resisted for so long cause SBP really lacks in this area, although i could rectify some of the flaws with a creative combination of vehicles and infantry. But there are so many improvements on the tank side of things that i am beginning to considering it anyway.

I think 22x22 km is still the maximum. Which is more than you need for a tactical simulation of tanks.
Is 22 the max per dimension or can i also have 44*11, f.e. ?

Nothing. Just messes up the ergonmomy of the interface if for every rare detail a separate option gets implemented. It is like a TV remote control with 50 buttons, and one with 20 buttons working via menues - I (and SBP) prefer the latter, for 95% of the time it is more comfortable. It seems nobody misses the options you lined out - I read no comments about these things anywhere in the past 5 years. I think you get lost in too specialised microdetails. ;) Have a taste of what you already have with the sim right now. Play it. You will be surprised how fast you probably forget the things you described. Like I have completely forgotten that there still are no shadows in the world, and that suspension still is not implemented, and maybe never will be. It simply does not matter.
You don't seem to be able to comprehend what i am talking about.:O: I haven't said to add 30 more buttons but remove 15 of them. So that you have a remote control with 5 buttons that can do the same trick, much easier and much faster. It is meant to optimize away totally superfluouse overhead of editing waypoints.

See above. I think you get lost in too many exceptions and sub-specialisations. Try the editor that is there, do a company assaulting a batallion in defence, or defend against a brigade attacking from randomised directions, needing you to shift around your numerically inferior forces to the shifting hotspots of action. You will be busy with many of the scenarios that already are there. You will already be busy with just 1-platoon scenarios. And the specialised effects you demand - can already be acchieved for the most. Just needs a little routine and practice.
Well apparently i haven't tried SBP yet, perhaps partially i am beating a dead horse here if there are such improvements already. So we have to see first but besides that i have my own agenda, i have my own reasons why i want to play this game, they are certainly different from yours. You don't need to try to convince me to change my expectations cause they won't change. I am merely checking out how close the latest release got to my expectations, nothing more nothing less.

I guarantee you nothing, I am only human. Oh, you mean you are actually not sure what you are talking about ?

Longer time ago I have done missions for my own enjoyment where I defined blue condition, maybe a force entering a zone, I then linked them to a blue I think "event" it is called, and these events can be the variable for events of the other side: red-event true when blueevent true. And then on the red side of things: red action go if red-event true. Timing variables, randomisations per mission and randomisations per call also are possible.Alright, that's what i wanted to know.

There is a SBP resources thread amongst the stickies at the top of the forum list. There also is a video thread, recommended is escpecially the Brave Rifles Series, and in general the MP-videos by Zipuli. And then there is eSims own youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/eSimGamesDtl#Thanks i know that and as a matter of fact i have like 3,5+GB on videos about SBP and watch them time and again. I watched the brave rifles a dozen times, i know zipuli and all that.

@Lieste:
Thanks but i think the manual would be good enough already.

[Skybird]

The new vehicle park 2.640 (without helicopters shown).

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/8691/ss020000.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/684/ss020000.jpg/)

[/URL]

The new infantry models.

[URL="http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/403/ss020218.jpg/"]http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/3672/ss020218.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/13/ss020000.jpg/)

[Skybird]

That totally depends on how you set up a scenario. I made a scenario once where you command a regiment very comfortable. Besides that if i am saying battalion i don't automatically mean micromanaging a battalion simultaniously but rather micromanaging a company while the rest is kept in reserve.
Understand that SBP focusses on gunning and commanding from a TC's place, and commanding that single vehicle, or a platoon. That is where it's major competence lies. Everything else, for example that you can also control a whole batallion or more, is luxury and bonus and not the core of what the key customer - the military - wants.

I want both.
No way. Not with ArmA, not with VBS, not with SBP.

Is 22 the max per dimension or can i also have 44*11, f.e. ?
22 km is the max per dimension. Which by doctrinal ideal provides the front width of more than a division, if I am not mistaken.


You don't seem to be able to comprehend what i am talking about.:O: I haven't said to add 30 more buttons but remove 15 of them. So that you have a remote control with 5 buttons that can do the same trick, much easier and much faster. It is meant to optimize away totally superfluouse overhead of editing waypoints.
It seems both the community and the designers are in disagreement with you there. The first does noit demand what you talk about, the latter does not have it on mind by himself.


Well apparently i haven't tried SBP yet, perhaps partially i am beating a dead horse here if there are such improvements already. So we have to see first but besides that i have my own agenda, i have my own reasons why i want to play this game, they are certainly different from yours. You don't need to try to convince me to change my expectations cause they won't change. I am merely checking out how close the latest release got to my expectations, nothing more nothing less.
Your expecations are your expectations. I just try to tell you what it is that you get. I do not get anything for convincing you of anything.


Oh, you mean you are actually not sure what you are talking about ?
I mean that like everybody else I could make mistakes.

[Deamon]

The new vehicle park 2.640 (without helicopters shown).
Ja! Ja! Ja! :Kaleun_Applaud:
Lots of new stuff to set on fire :Kaleun_Salivating:

Understand that SBP focusses on gunning and commanding from a TC's place, and commanding that single vehicle, or a platoon. That is where it's major competence lies. Everything else, for example that you can also control a whole batallion or more, is luxury and bonus and not the core of what the key customer - the military - wants.
I perfactly understand that but i also don't care. I merely hope to get what i want one day.

No way. Not with ArmA, not with VBS, not with SBP.
Oh, btw when i said i want both i didn't meant that SBP should become also a tactic shooter but merely a much more leaborated infantry part that can be controled much better.

Now don't tell me that the military is the actual customer of eSim and that they catter only their demands and that this is a tank simulator in the first place and that my other wishes are not going to happen. Well let me tell you this, there are only so and so much vehicles in the real world and they are still fully occupied to feature them(respectively whatever the military customers request) But apparently this stuff is all featured one day and what then ? Are they just going to shut down the company or what ? No of course not, they will of course expend and eventually return to making games again and introduce more elements to the game of which improvements of the infantry and all the other stuff is the obvious way to go and this is where i hope to finally get what i want.

And besides that i have the gut feel that the military itself will demand a more and more elaborated infantry part. No one says that they will keep using it merely as a tank sim. The use could be expendad also to train infantry commanders and stuff. The trend to use PC sims for military training will of course further increase with time. But on the other hand there are of course purpose designed sims for that like VBS and stuff. So i guess we will have to see.

So, so far i have stayed away from it and just looked them over the shoulder from some distance away, reckoning how close the thing got to my ambitions already.

I feel quite tempted to get into it finally but i just discovered the "Steel Armour" project and i am wondering if it could be the better option for me. Perhaps i should wait till it gets out first. But no, wait, there is the habbit now to equip the games with nasty copy protection systems. Hmm, perhaps the dongle solution of SBP may be the only viable option for me. :hmmm:

I am so desquamated by this new trend that i don't even consider to buy new games anymore. I play only the old stuff once in a while and open source games but besides that i have pretty much abandoned gaming because of that.

22 km is the max per dimension. Which by doctrinal ideal provides the front width of more than a division, if I am not mistaken. That is certainly the peve that i have with SB. There is no way you could ever run out of fuel on this map so that logistics become an issues suddely. I like scenarios where you have to cross large terrains. BTW you do not need to reply to that, i know what you are going to say now, i am merely thinking loud.

It seems both the community and the designers are in disagreement with you there. The first does noit demand what you talk about, the latter does not have it on mind by himself. The community isn't in disagreement with me cause i am the community. What the designers agree or disagree with you simple don't know. Only when they get confronted with this idea and reply to that we can see what they really think of that.

That the designers haven't thought about that improvement yet is perhaps because they have a million other things on their mind already and simple never had the opportunity to even think about it.

Your expecations are your expectations. I just try to tell you what it is that you get. I do not get anything for convincing you of anything.
I see, i just get the impression sometimes that you kind of try to persuade me to change into the favour of eSims development policy or something.

I mean that like everybody else I could make mistakes.
Sure thing. But if you are not sure then just say so. But thanks anyway.

[Deamon]

Oh btw is the M60A3 actually manable ?

[Skybird]

Oh, btw when i said i want both i didn't meant that SBP should become also a tactic shooter but merely a much more leaborated infantry part that can be controled much better.
As I already said, they will do some imporvements to the ciontrol logic, and there is some demand for suiting the sim towards insirgency warfare. But you can also see the result is a focus on more APC and IFV options, not so much on including an ifantry component. Their management also indicated they expect that the focus in Wetsern arme focus sooner or later will swing back towards more heavy mechjnised warfare, sooner or later.

Now don't tell me that the military is the actual customer of eSim and that they catter only their demands and that this is a tank simulator in the first place and that my other wishes are not going to happen.
I don't "tell". It's a fact I state. From the player sales they cannot live.

Well let me tell you this, there are only so and so much vehicles in the real world and they are still fully occupied to feature them(respectively whatever the military customers request) But apparently this stuff is all featured one day and what then ? Are they just going to shut down the company or what ? No of course not, they will of course expend and eventually return to making games again and introduce more elements to the game of which improvements of the infantry and all the other stuff is the obvious way to go and this is where i hope to finally get what i want.
Many years ahead, and an uncertain future it is. Most people prefer to take what is available NOW and enjoy the time until then with playing it. And I tend to think that is wise. But if you want to wait another number of years just to get the perfect, the one solution that fits all yopu demand in detail - feel free to do that.


And besides that i have the gut feel that the military itself will demand a more and more elaborated infantry part. No one says that they will keep using it merely as a tank sim.
So far they exclusively buy it for tanker training. I am not in eSim'S heads and paper stuff and so do not know what is going on. But in 2006 when I put together an itnerview with their technical director I asked him about the dfistant future. And in 2006 he said that their competence lies in the field of tanks and mechanised warfare. It is here where the sim can compete with the rivalling products the military buys in form of hardware cabin simulatores for millions of dollars, and SBP competes successfully there due to its aggressive pricing. But this argument is not existent anymore when the focus shifts on infantry games, since here other software producers already have established themselves.


That is certainly the peve that i have with SB. There is no way you could ever run out of fuel on this map so that logistics become an issues suddely.
You can. And do. Some vehicles have shorter legs than others. And fueltanks can be perforated in battle. All of a sudden those fuel tankers and engineer units, CS trucks and Bergepanzer and ambulances make sense.


The community isn't in disagreement with me cause i am the community. What the designers agree or disagree with you simple don't know. Only when they get confronted with this idea and reply to that we can see what they really think of that.
Short attack of megalomania, eh? You are just one person, and even an outsider not knowing the sim. The community is the dominant majority over you. And for soem strange reason in five years I have not heared them saying what you said. That'S what makes you an outsider with a minority opinion. And what the developer thinks about how he should do things you can see in the results of how he actually does handle things, and designs features.


That the designers haven't thought about that improvement yet is perhaps because they have a million other things on their mind already and simple never had the opportunity to even think about it.
Maybe. Or yours is a minority opinion.

Sure thing. But if you are not sure then just say so. But thanks anyway.
If I am not sure of what I say, I wouldn't say it at all or add a line that I am not certain. Like every human, I can make mistakes without realising it.

Try to become a bit more open-minded. You have so specific demands and expectations that you probbaly will wait for years and years and still do not get what you want. All the while you are missing stuff that is very good already and is praised by many. The more your focus gets "tunnelised" or fixiated on specific demands, the less likely it is your desires will get fulfilled. You wait - but what did you get in the end? Nothing. You want to play huge scenarios, but have no ida how big the ones can get you alkready can do with SBP - I played some scenarios that took me breaks and several hpours over the day, due to my style of playing and wanting to avoid losses as much as possible. A scenario designed with any of the options you outlined above, would not make a dramatic difference in final effect. So relax, and look at it more easy. Yopu are interested in playing the best tank sim there is and that is closer to reality than any other - play this. You are not interested in thnat? Forget SBP, and spend your time on something more useful or to your taste.

But sitting five years just to see some incredibly specific demands in desiogn getting fulfilled and over that denying all the cream that already is available - to me that is an extremely strange choice somebody could make. But of course, you are free to decide the way you want. My advise after these two days of talking would be: forget about SBP, and never think of it again. Because I think you will never be satisfied, honestly. ;) So just move on and enjoy yourself better that way. ;)

[Deamon]

I don't "tell". It's a fact I state. From the player sales they cannot live.
With "tell" i meant you don't need to comment that. Besides that i see i posted that sentece incomplete, i meant to say: "Now don't tell me that the military is the actual customer of eSim and that they catter only their demands and that this is a tank simulator in the first place, BECAUSE I KNOW ALL THAT!"

Besides that an armour simulation isn't quite an armour simulation without infantry. I also feel i have to clarify what i am talking about when i am speaking of infantry improvements. For the most part i am actually quite satisfied with the infantry the way it was in SB, i could work around some limitations alright but there remains a small rest of inabilities of the infantry that just drives me nuts, ruined the experience for me time and again and that prevented it to be a really usefull tool. Which are:

*The inability to crawl and stay low when i say to stay low.
*The inability to stay upright(while not moving). I would like to have the option to lay, crouch or stay upright, so that i can control the exposure of the soldier over the cover.
*The inability to shoot from a standing and crouching position.
*The inability to stay right where i want them to stay, they always run unauthorized for cover and screw up my ambush set ups.
* Throwing handgrandes, even if there is no visual contact to the enemy, just trow grenades as far as possible into the direction that i want it to. So that i can take out enemy soldiers on the other side of the road without storming over the ridge commiting suicide. It should also be able to engage enemy infantry with RPG's and ATGM's.(although in SBP that should be possbile already when controlling an ATGM manually )
*The inability to charge forward while the other half of the squad provides coverinng fire. ( Although that one was fixed in SBP already ? )
*The inability to split the team down to individual soldiers. I am tired of being forced to sacrifice the whole squad while trying to take a peak over that hill.(I am not sure if my memory seves me right but i think it was possible in SBP already at list split the squad into 2 groups which would mean to me a lot already ).
*Missing options for setting formations and formation spacing. While at it it should also be possible to change the facing of the fomation by simple looking into the direction you want the formation to face to and press a key.
*It should be possible to load an infantry squad into any vehicle and not just the one to which it belongs. ( Although i think that is already possible in SBP )
*Infantry squads should act completely independently from the IFV when i seperate them from it. In SB when i send the IFV elsewhere it suddenly stops and waits till the squad has mounted the IFV again, which wouldn't occure only when the IFV is far away from the squad. ( Although Sky indicated that this already has been fixed in SBP ).
*And in the context of SBP engaging low and slow flying air targets in close proximity. Is that actually possible already ? BTW does SBP features manpads yet ?
*All vehicles should actually have a crew that can dismount from the vehicle and continue on foot. So that i can disembark one crew member and let him run up the hill and take a peek over the edge with a binocular so that i do not need to expose the IFV and get blow away or just to avoid detection. Also in case the vehicle gets lost and the crew survives being able to continue the mission. This feature would be very high on my priority list and would also allow some hilarious rescue missions when a vehicle gets immobilized and you attempt then to rescue the crew under fire.( I think this are the little things that would make a big difference immersion wise ) For that matter the AI should be able to use the vehicle as cover and eventually disembark on the opposite side of the vehicle from where the fire is comming from, if possible. And while at it the infantry should have the general ability to use vehicles as cover and also move with them over open areas while using it as cover in a very tight formation spacing which is a common practice in reality. Also pop up over the endge of a vehicle and fire, provided the vehicle is not too high of course. I also would have almost said that it should be possible to mount the infantry ONTOP of a vehicle so that when a squad looses its IFV you just mount them ontop of that M1 and get out of there(you know the drill ? On the BTR you are saver than inside ) but in order not to enrage Sky too much i won't :har: That stuff would certainly allow some hilarious and realistic missions.
*Another thing that i am not going to say is that i hope to see flamethrowers and Handflampatronen some day. :D That would be very handy in sticky situations.

I think that would be it for me. I am wondering how much of this was already implemented in SBP ? ( This is the actual reason why i post the list here ) But that they switched to 3D infantry kind of suggests to me major infantry improvements in the near future. Also that one scene in the video here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU8dveL9Yew

...where you see that one biker drop that one insergent with the RPG at the bridge. This is just the kind of stuff that i look for.

I really hope they will fix that in the near future cause with this additional abilites the game would get a whole new dimension. Sky are you testing the new release already ?

And Sky pleeeeeaaaaase don't post comments about that that you have posted already above.

So far they exclusively buy it for tanker training. I am not in eSim'S heads and paper stuff and so do not know what is going on. But in 2006 when I put together an itnerview with their technical director I asked him about the dfistant future. And in 2006 he said that their competence lies in the field of tanks and mechanised warfare. It is here where the sim can compete with the rivalling products the military buys in form of hardware cabin simulatores for millions of dollars, and SBP competes successfully there due to its aggressive pricing. But this argument is not existent anymore when the focus shifts on infantry games, since here other software producers already have established themselves. 2006 ? That is 5 years old news. I remember a statement, don't know where i read it, in an interview or something that eSim annonced(or at least intended to announce) to their military customers to reserve one year(i don't remember which it was supposed to be) to cater the demands of private customers. And in that context, while it is true that they cannot survive from private customers alone the private customers are still there regardless and i am wondering at this point for what percentage of the revenue do the private customers account because if it is significant they can be actually expected to cater the needs of them as well accordingly.

You can. And do. Some vehicles have shorter legs than others. And fueltanks can be perforated in battle. All of a sudden those fuel tankers and engineer units, CS trucks and Bergepanzer and ambulances make sense.
I see. For that it obviously makes sense.

Short attack of megalomania, eh?Oh you bought into that ? HAHA gotcha! :har: That was meant to be a provocation, since you didn't seem to count me to the community. Unless of course your definition of communit excludes the SB community of which i am still an avid member. As a matter of fact SB is one of the games that i play the most, if you care to know and i am very much into armour.

You are just one person, and even an outsider not knowing the sim. The community is the dominant majority over you. And for soem strange reason in five years I have not heared them saying what you said. That'S what makes you an outsider with a minority opinion.
And that means what ?

And what the developer thinks about how he should do things you can see in the results of how he actually does handle things, and designs features.
This is only one way of interpreting what that means. It could just as well mean that he simple didn't knew it better at that time.

Maybe. Or yours is a minority opinion. Since i run my own development for over 8 years now i can testify that as a developer(coder in particular) you always have a thousand things on your mind that are all somehow obvious and you go so fast from one issue to another that in the heat of the battle various other obvious ideas simple go unnoticed. It's like a bunch of enemies shooting at you from 10 different positions in all the heat and noise you won't be able to keep track of all of them because you are overwhelmed.

Try to become a bit more open-minded. You have so specific demands and expectations that you probbaly will wait for years and years and still do not get what you want.
I am not sure what open minded means here but besides my wishlist for improved infantry my demands are really just minor improvements to the editor.

All the while you are missing stuff that is very good already and is praised by many. The more your focus gets "tunnelised" or fixiated on specific demands, the less likely it is your desires will get fulfilled. You wait - but what did you get in the end? Nothing. You want to play huge scenarios, but have no ida how big the ones can get you alkready can do with SBP - I played some scenarios that took me breaks and several hpours over the day, due to my style of playing and wanting to avoid losses as much as possible.
Frankly i feel misunderstood by you. I certainly do have an idea how large the scenarios can get and i suppose there is no saving feature yet ? I play SB for years now and played all available scenarios. I would have gotten into SBP already if it wouldn't be so expensive so i sit, wait and watch for the right moment to strike. It's just a question of time till i will. Right now i am 50:50. The reason why i am posting here now is simple because i try to figure out if it's ripe for me already.

Also i don't feel that i am "tunnelising" at all. I am very enthusiastic about the progress made so far and expressed that here on several occasions it's just that i have the desires that i have. Besides the lacking infantry simulation there are only a few minor things that annoy me. Things that would be easy to implement and make the life of a scenario designer a hell of a lot easier. I played all the scenarios out there for SB and in the end started to make my own but quickely had to realize that the SB editor missed a few very essencial features that i would need to implement my ideas.

A scenario designed with any of the options you outlined above, would not make a dramatic difference in final effect.
To me it would.

But sitting five years just to see some incredibly specific demands in desiogn getting fulfilled and over that denying all the cream that already is available - to me that is an extremely strange choice somebody could make.I feel misunderstood now even more.

But of course, you are free to decide the way you want. My advise after these two days of talking would be: forget about SBP, and never think of it again. Because I think you will never be satisfied, honestly. ;) So just move on and enjoy yourself better that way. ;)My advice would be don't take what i say too personally, lol. :haha:

[Skybird]

Oh btw is the M60A3 actually manable ?
-> see stickied SBP resource thread


Besides that an armour simulation isn't quite an armour simulation without infantry.
See eSims own product identification in thre stickied SBP resourece thread. That says what the focus is.

The inability to crawl and stay low when i say to stay low.
*The inability to stay upright(while not moving). I would like to have the option to lay, crouch or stay upright, so that i can control the exposure of the soldier over the cover.
*The inability to shoot from a standing and crouching position.
*The inability to stay right where i want them to stay, they always run unauthorized for cover and screw up my ambush set ups.
* Throwing handgrandes, even if there is no visual contact to the enemy, just trow grenades as far as possible into the direction that i want it to. So that i can take out enemy soldiers on the other side of the road without storming over the ridge commiting suicide. It should also be able to engage enemy infantry with RPG's and ATGM's.(although in SBP that should be possbile already when controlling an ATGM manually )
*The inability to charge forward while the other half of the squad provides coverinng fire. ( Although that one was fixed in SBP already ? )
*The inability to split the team down to individual soldiers. I am tired of being forced to sacrifice the whole squad while trying to take a peak over that hill.(I am not sure if my memory seves me right but i think it was possible in SBP already at list split the squad into 2 groups which would mean to me a lot already ).
*Missing options for setting formations and formation spacing. While at it it should also be possible to change the facing of the fomation by simple looking into the direction you want the formation to face to and press a key.
*It should be possible to load an infantry squad into any vehicle and not just the one to which it belongs. ( Although i think that is already possible in SBP )
*Infantry squads should act completely independently from the IFV when i seperate them from it. In SB when i send the IFV elsewhere it suddenly stops and waits till the squad has mounted the IFV again, which wouldn't occure only when the IFV is far away from the squad. ( Although Sky indicated that this already has been fixed in SBP ).
*And in the context of SBP engaging low and slow flying air targets in close proximity. Is that actually possible already ? BTW does SBP features manpads yet ?
*All vehicles should actually have a crew that can dismount from the vehicle and continue on foot. So that i can disembark one crew member and let him run up the hill and take a peek over the edge with a binocular so that i do not need to expose the IFV and get blow away or just to avoid detection. Also in case the vehicle gets lost and the crew survives being able to continue the mission. This feature would be very high on my priority list and would also allow some hilarious rescue missions when a vehicle gets immobilized and you attempt then to rescue the crew under fire.( I think this are the little things that would make a big difference immersion wise )
You have never tried to breach a minefield under fire, and then get the leading tank taken out in the middle of the passage. That is what emerges you into things. And what the sim can already do.

Or a bridging assault, although not before now the feature was fully functional.

And like in reality it is better not to try any of these things, if possible, due to the risks involved.
For that matter the AI should be able to use the vehicle as cover and eventually disembark on the opposite side of the vehicle from where the fire is comming from, if possible. And while at it the infantry should have the general ability to use vehicles as cover and also move with them over open areas while using it as cover in a very tight formation spacing which is a common practice in reality. Also pop up over the endge of a vehicle and fire, provided the vehicle is not too high of course. I also would have almost said that it should be possible to mount the infantry ONTOP of a vehicle so that when a squad looses its IFV you just mount them ontop of that M1 and get out of there(you know the drill ? On the BTR you are saver than inside ) but in order not to enrage Sky too much i won't :har: That stuff would certainly allow some hilarious and realistic missions.

Anything else...?

I think that would be it for me. I am wondering how much of this was already implemented in SBP ? ( This is the actual reason why i post the list here ) But that they switched to 3D infantry kind of suggests to me major infantry improvements in the near future. Also that one scene in the video here...

The infantry in the future will stay much like it is, the AI handling its reaction to standard orders or enemy actions just will improve. What you want surpasses even ArmA, and you want a massive second focus on playing from infantry'S position. But that is not what SBP is there for.

Squads now are split in heavy and light sections. Both can act independently from their transport unit. There is a single soldier FO unit. There are 3 men teams for TOW, HMG, MMG, 4mm greande launcher.


2006 ? That is 5 years old news. I remember a statement, don't know where i read it, in an interview or something that eSim annonced(or at least intended to announce) to their military customers to reserve one year(i don't remember which it was supposed to be) to cater the demands of private customers.
I recall that - it was a simple board post of Ssnake saying that they have some relief from military ocntreacts two or three years ago to extend that timeframe to a one year period to focus a bit more on what many players in the forum posted.


And in that context, while it is true that they cannot survive from private customers alone the private customers are still there regardless and i am wondering at this point for what percentage of the revenue do the private customers account because if it is significant they can be actually expected to cater the needs of them as well accordingly.
They have just increased the team and the people need to be payed on a monthly basis. They can live from working on military contracts. They can not live from skipping them and doing game stuff exclusively. The SBP you can buy, costs 100 dollars. The licence the military must buy per smallest number of seat-licence, costs 18.000 dollars. Go figure. SBP is a niche product, and tank games in general have their greatest times since M1TP2 behind them, it seems. Not even the WWII games are asked for in great numbers. and WWII is more popular than modern war in tank games. Never understood the reason, but that'S how it is.


And that means what ?
That for most of your specialised and detailed demands you probably can wait forever.


Since i run my own development for over 8 years now i can testify that as a developer(coder in particular) you always have a thousand things on your mind that are all somehow obvious and you go so fast from one issue to another that in the heat of the battle various other obvious ideas simple go unnoticed. It's like a bunch of enemies shooting at you from 10 different positions in all the heat and noise you won't be able to keep track of all of them because you are overwhelmed.
Do though plan to ever complete in this life, or will it be just in thy next one?

I am not sure what open minded means here but besides my wishlist for improved infantry my demands are really just minor improvements to the editor.
You want a completely new theme of simulation in equal detail being put into it! In principle SBP and ArmA married. This has been suggested in board messages over the years. And has been slammed every time, as far as I am aware of such debates. The focus is gunnery training, TC command training, unit interaqction in small units, best platoon level. Live with it. Everythinbg else that already is there, or will be there, already is BONUS.


Frankly i feel misunderstood by you. I certainly do have an idea how large the scenarios can get and i suppose there is no saving feature yet ? I play SB for years now and played all available scenarios. I would have gotten into SBP already if it wouldn't be so expensive so i sit, wait and watch for the right moment to strike. It's just a question of time till i will. Right now i am 50:50. The reason why i am posting here now is simple because i try to figure out if it's ripe for me already.

If you do not go for it after a 5 year wait, a solid community on display, several major upgrades illustrating how much the sim already has expanded, then simple truth is you never will. I think you simply have too high, too perfectionistr expectations. And beyond a certain altitude at which they fly, you never get down to the ground again.

The price. I assume you have bought games at times. Currently, new releases cost 40-50 euros for PC. If you have bought one game per year to play it for one year , you would have spend 250 euros. SBP could be had for 80 Euros at the lowest end of the price range. It equals the price of two normal games. Just that you get something that if the matter is of ionterest to you will keep you hooked not for one year, but for many years.

Seen that way, SBP is not expoensive, but a smile-.price offer. Even more so compared to the military the military which must spend this money to get some features unlocked (limit on map sizes, instructur console, digital map options).

Also i don't feel that i am "tunnelising" at all. I am very enthusiastic about the progress made so far and expressed that here on several occasions it's just that i have the desires that i have. Besides the lacking infantry simulation there are only a few minor things that annoy me. Things that would be easy to implement and make the life of a scenario designer a hell of a lot easier. I played all the scenarios out there for SB and in the end started to make my own but quickely had to realize that the SB editor missed a few very essencial features that i would need to implement my ideas.

I feel misunderstood now even more.
Not at all. But you sit and wait since 5 years and refuse to play SBP since some specialised details you want are not there. You invest your energy on focussing on those 1% that are not there and deny the shining 99% that are available. Sorry, but that is not clever. In five years, I must have turned several dozen people into customers :), first by my review, and then by my board presence here; in the first year, I even got emails by them telling me in private again how much they like the sim. In these five years I have read just 2 or 3 people at the eSim board who refused the sim over claims of noit liking it. That ratio makes it the by far best rated sim I ever heared of in the whole history of computer games - and I'm with computer games since all beginning on.

I'm getting a bit tired of writing in circles around you. I answered your questions where I could. I told you you miss out on something great. I gave you the math over the price. The stickied resource thread is there. You are free to decide any way you want. But if you ask me over what to do, buy it or not, I say: don'T. Because I think you simply never will be satisfied and instead focus more on what is not there instead of what is there. ;) That you have invested 5 years into a wait that most likely never will see full completion, while in five years the price for getting what is there would have relativised itself very much, says something.

Whatever, good luck.

[Deamon]

You have never tried to breach a minefield under fire, and then get the leading tank taken out in the middle of the passage. That is what emerges you into things. And what the sim can already do.
That would certainly be part of it.

What you want surpasses even ArmA,He ?

and you want a massive second focus on playing from infantry'S position.
I wouldn't call that exactly massive just a few more improvements.

They have just increased the team and the people need to be payed on a monthly basis.
BTW: How big is the team by now ?

and WWII is more popular than modern war in tank games. Never understood the reason, but that'S how it is.
I would speculate that this has something to do with WWII being lavishly adverticed already in schools while you hear only little about modern warfare which is not surprizing then that the majority preffers WWII. People preffer what they know most about, you choose only from thouse things that you know.

I really stumbled accidentally into the WWI naval warfare subject. I had no interest in it whatsoever and if you would have told me before that i would be developing something awkward as a WWI subsim one day i would have slapped you. It was not untill i read my first book on the subject ( Riders of the Deep ) when i instantly realized the blasting potential of this subject ( provided it's properly implemented and this is why i invest so much time into it ) The spirit and inspiration that eminates from the eyewitness accounts are beyond WWII and beyond modern warfare(and i am saying that as a cold war nut ). I would have never expected that.

That for most of your specialised and detailed demands you probably can wait forever.
I guess, yes.

Do though plan to ever complete in this life, or will it be just in thy next one?
This one.

You want a completely new theme of simulation in equal detail being put into it!
No.

In principle SBP and ArmA married.Even if my wishlist for SBP would be implemented, the infantry part in SBP would be still faaaaaaaaaar away from ArmA.

I think you simply have too high, too perfectionistr expectations. And beyond a certain altitude at which they fly, you never get down to the ground again.
And i think you exaggerate the magnitude of my wishes, excessively.

The price. I assume you have bought games at times. Currently, new releases cost 40-50 euros for PC. If you have bought one game per year to play it for one year , you would have spend 250 euros. SBP could be had for 80 Euros at the lowest end of the price range. It equals the price of two normal games. Just that you get something that if the matter is of ionterest to you will keep you hooked not for one year, but for many years.Your assumptions are wrong. I don't buy games since years. I can't even remember when i bought a game the last time, it's so long ago. I also cannot keep up with the hardware upgrade madness anymore and ended up playing old games. I still play operation flashpoint, civilization and that alike. Price is not the only reason why i haven't got into SBP yet, it's also because i still have so much fun with the ole SB :D That is why waiting isn't that hard for me, i wanted to suck out the last droplet of blood out of it before i would consider to merge to SBP and it was only when i tried to get into scenario making and ren into the said editor limitations when i seriously started to consider to switch to SBP and i don't doubt into the potential of SBP a slightest bit and look forward to it. I am considering it now cause i think i exhausted the potential of SB for me.

Seen that way, SBP is not expoensive, but a smile-.price offer. Even more so compared to the military the military which must spend this money to get some features unlocked (limit on map sizes, instructur console, digital map options).I had confused dollars with euros and thought it costs 125€. But now i see the light :D

Not at all. But you sit and wait since 5 years and refuse to play SBP since some specialised details you want are not there.As i said above it's not that i refuse it but i still had too good of a time with the ole SB which reached the end of its life cycle for me now. Besides that i wanted to spend most of my time with development anyway and that is obviously a lot easier by not having SBP cause i know of course exactly that i would get addicted to it when i would get it.

[Deamon]

Sky i have one question about the ordering process, how can i pay in euro ? I see there only a dollar option.

[Skybird]

Sky i have one question about the ordering process, how can i pay in euro ? I see there only a dollar option.
The service will automatically exchange dollars for Euros on your banking account. I never had any worries with it.

By the time of writing this, 100 $US equalled 75,53 Euros.

Since all patches and upgrades always come as complete new installations and the manuals and DVDs get easily outdated anyway, you can safely live by the download version only, I think DVDs and printed manuals are currently not offered anyway. Saves you 25 dollars. You download the software and install it. You can burn the installation file to DVD if you want. You can read and print all installed manuals already while waiting for the mail-delivery of the dongle that is needed to run the actual software. Should be around one week, no shipping or tax costs.

Watch out for new freepatch/new version later this week. Since you need to wait for the dongle anyway, I would wait to download that one so that you do not two installations within just some days. The original manual for older versions you can find in their download section, resources->documentations.